Drabkin, I. E. Notes On The Laws of Motion in Aristotle

Notes on the Laws of Motion in Aristotle Author(s): Israel E.
Drabkin Reviewed work(s): Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 59, No. 1 (1938), pp. 60-84 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/290584 . Accessed: 12/03/2013 10:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:56:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE. I Aristotle's philosophy of nature is basically concerned with the subject of motion and change in the broadest sense. The treatment is, in latter-day terminology, metaphysical, and the culmination is the theory of the prime mover. Yet in the course of the rearing of the metaphysical structure arguments are introduced from time to time that are based on what may be called "laws of motion," statements of quantitative relations, equations, in which Aristotle describes phenomena of nature, for it is in the phenomena of nature that Aristotle seeks to ground his philosophy and his science. These equations of Aristotle are in certain ways erroneous, if we may judge by the results of modern science. They may even be said, in a sense, to be not really essential to the Aristotelian system, as a philosophical system, but they do reflect, however imperfectly, the state of scientific thought in an important school of antiquity, and have had an historical importance which it would be difficult to exaggerate. It will prove instructive to reexamine the passages in which Aristotle sets forth these "laws " of motion, particularly in the sphere which we call dynamics, to consider to what extent they are comparable to the analogous formulations of subsequent science, and to try to grasp the basic causes of error, that we may the better evaluate the achievement of Aristotelian science. Uncritical evaluations, neglectful of the historical researches of the last fifty years, are still most common; in fact, the sharpest divergence on some points is found even among such skilled investigators as Mach, Duhem, Boutroux, Milhaud, Cornford, Carteron, and others, as we shall see. Are we permitted to impute any science of mechanics to Aristotle? Why were the Greeks, whose genius was so successful in a deductive science like mathematics or in the descriptive and classificatory aspects of biology, unable to achieve more in combining observation and deduction in physics, and particularly in dynamics? Were the Greek philosophers and scientists not fundamentally interested in change as a series of quantitatively
See, for example, C. T. Chase, A History of Experimental Physics (New York, 1932), p. 15, and H. T. Briscoe, The Structure and Properties of Matter (New York, 1935), pp. 6-9.
60
NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.
61
measureable phenomena or in the formulation of such quantitative relationships but rather in purely qualitative aspects of matter and change? Did the essentially qualitative treatment of matter which entailed for Aristotle and others a cleavage between what they called natural and unnatural motion and between sublunary and supralunary phenomena constitute the barrier to fruitful science ? Was it inaccurate observationwhich led to the Aristotelian principle that a constant force produces a uniform velocity (rather than a uniform acceleration), or was it too slavish an adherenceto observation? Was the cause of the failure the essential complexity of physical phenomena which required for successful handling a degree of analysis and of abstraction unattained by Aristotle? Are we permitted, in any sense, to see in his work an attempt at what we should today call theoretical physics, that is, a deductive body of quantitative propositions based on postulates suggested by experience? These are some of the questions on which my discussion will bear. It is impossible to understand Aristotle's treatment of motion except in connection with his metaphysical system. The kinds of motion, motion as a bridge between the potential and the actual, the relation of matter, form, and substance, the doctrine of causes, the qualitative differentiation of the four terrestrial elements and of the celestial element, the bearing of these differences on the natural motion of the elements (i. e. the doctrine of the heavy and the light, and of natural places), the theory of the formation and of the natural motion of compounds, the doctrine of unnatural or forced motion, the finiteness of the universe, the doctrine of time, space, and the void, the ultimate deduction of a prime mover-this background must be kept in mind throughout the whole discussion of the " laws " of motion. But if this is done and the particular context of each passage is noted, and if we are careful not to read into the language of Aristotle ideas which such words as " force," "mass," etc. have attained in the subsequent course of history, I think we may fairly examine those quantitative formulations to which I have referred. II In the case of external forces acting upon bodies (i. e. what Aristotle calls forced or unnatural motion, as opposed to a case of natural motion such as the free fall of a heavy body toward its
62
ISRAEL E. DRABKIN.
natural place) Aristotle states in numerous passages a law of proportionality connecting the force applied, the weight moved, and the time required for the force to move the weight a given distance. I cite typical examples. I. (a) "If, then, a mover A has moved a body B a distance C in time D, the same force (Ujva/tL) A will, in the same time, move half of B double the distance C, and (b) A will move half of B the distance C in half the time and D..., a given force (3Uvapls) moves a given <weight> a If (c) in a given time, <it will move the weight> half distance given the distance in half the time,2 and (d) Half the force (/oXvs) will move half <the weight> the given distance in the given time. Thus, let E be half of force (.vva,,dcw) A, and Z be half of <weight> B; the ratio of force ('v'Xs) to weight (facpo3) is in both cases the same, so that the respective forces will move the respective weights the same distance in the same time " (Physics VII, 5, 249 b 30-250 a 10). II. (In the course of the refutation of the possibility of a body of infinite extension) (a) "Let it be assumed that the smaller and the larger <weights> are acted upon in shorter and in longer time, respectively, by the same <force>, the weights being in proportion to the time" De Caelo I, 7, 275a 32-275b 2). (b) "Let an equal <force> produce an equal alteration in an equal time, a smaller <force> a smaller alteration in the same time, a greater <force> a greater alteration, the alterations in the last two cases being to each other as the greater <force> to the smaller" (De Caelo I, 7, 275a 7-10).3 (c) "For the greater <force> was assumed <to effect a given alteration> in a shorter time" (De Caelo I, 7, 275a 20-21). III. (In the course of the argument that the prime mover is
This clause may be considered also as part of the protasis. Although alteration alone is mentioned here, the applicability of the principles to the other types of motion, i. e. increase and decrease, and locomotion, is indicated in De Caelo I, 7, 274b 34-275a 13. In Physics VII, 5, 250a 28-250b 6 not only is the applicability of the proportions to all types of motion set forth but the proportionalities are given in extenso. 3
2
63
without magnitude, since infinite extension is impossible and infinite force cannot reside in a finite magnitude) For if a given <force produces a movement> in a (a) C" given time, a greater <force will produce the movement> in a lesser, but definite, time, in inverse proportion" (Physics VIII,
10, 266b 17-19; the same principle is applied in 10-12).
(b) " For the greater <weight> is moved in greater <time>" (Physics VIII, 10, 266a 18). (c) " For let it be assumed that the greater force (SvvaCs) is that which always produces a given effect in less time, as in heating, sweetening, hurling, or moving in general" (Physics VIII, 10, 266a 26-28). IV. (In the course of an argument that all bodies have finite weight or lightness) "The smaller and the lighter body will be moved further by the same force (Svvawos) <in a given time> ... for the speed of the smaller body will be to that of the larger as the larger body is to the smaller" (De Caelo III, 2, 301b 4-5, 11-13). In addition to these passages, what really amounts to a definition of average velocity in terms of distance traversed and time required is frequently referred to by Aristotle.4 The passages I have cited above may be considered from various points of view. But first, perhaps, reference should be made to a view such as that of Carteron,5that the character of Aristotle's formulations precludes our considering them as indicative of anything like a science of mechanics, that the concept of force, for Aristotle, remains essentially a qualitative concept,6 that
E.g. throughout the discussion in Physics VI, 2, 233a 31-b 15. See also VI, 4, 235a 20-22 and VI, 7, 237b 23-28. Henri Carteron, La Notion de Force dans le Systeme d'Aristote (Paris, 1923), passim, but particularly pp. 1-32. 6 Those who stress the distinction between quantitative and qualitative interests often set up what is essentially a false distinction. Aristotle, for-example, seeks at times to treat qualitative differences quanThat he does not succeed titatively (Physics VIII, 10, 266a 26-28). better is evidence not of a lack of interest in such quantitative treatment but of an inability to deal with certain matters without the proper groundwork, i, e. without precise methods of ordering qualitative differences. What is manifested in phenomena are complexes of qualities, and science progresses when it is able to abstract from such complexes one quality for special consideration, and is able then to find some
64
ISRAEL E. DRABKIN.
force is inherent in substances and inseparable from them, that the passages in which force is considered quantitatively and as productive of motion in a body external to it are tentative and not really essential, that the proportions are to be treated not as precise mathematical relations, but as merely suggestive of the idea that the greater force produces the greater effect, in short that there is no precise idea in Aristotle of velocity, of kinematics, of the distinction of statics and dynamics. If Carteron means that there is no definitive system of mechanics, or that the concepts are not those of modern science, or that the purpose of Aristotle is something quite different from the purpose of one who to-day writes a textbook on physics or on mechanics, he is quite right. But, even if it be granted that these ideas are a subordinate element in the Aristotelian system, they can not be dismissed entirely, for they do represent an early attempt at the quantitative formulation of the phenomena of dynamics.7 The language in which Aristotle speaks of velocity and of force in the sense
of 84vajus orotrrpTKo, quite external to the body moved, is unequiv-
ocal, and conclusive against Carteron's extreme view. In the Newtonian system the fundamental postulate is the continuance of a body in its state of rest or in rectilinear motion of uniform velocity (the principle of inertia) unless-here I shall use the popular expression 8-it is acted upon by a force, in which case the rate of change of its momentum is proportional to the force impressed, the change taking place in the direction in which such force is impressed. This is to assert that force is pro9 portional to the product of mass and acceleration, in other words
means (e.g. the thermometer or the spectroscope) of reducing the consideration of the quality in question (which may be, itself, non-additive) to a metric basis. 7 The Mechanica is generally held to be not by Aristotle, but to represent ideas current in the Peripatetic School at that time. It is concerned at many points with problems growing out of the principles set forth in the passages I have cited. The theory of the lever is developed from dynamical postulates in a manner analogous to that in which modern mechanics derive both dynamics and statics from one set of assumptions. 8 It is customary to avoid the " anthropomorphic" connotation in this use of the term "force," and to consider the latter as a convenient term for the product of the mass and the acceleration, the units being properly chosen. I do not speak here of relativity physics. 9 The notion of "mass" as separate from that of "weight" need
65
that a uniformly accelerated motion is produced during the application of a constant force. From this postulate is deduced a remarkablebody of propositions in accordance with which the observed movements of bodies in nature may, within limits, be described. The system is based upon equations representing what is never realized in nature, the motion of an ideal body without friction in a medium devoid of resistance, encountering no force whatever except the single force under consideration. Two millennia of scientific thought after Aristotle's day were required before the degree of abstraction necessary to arrive at a clear understanding of the principle of inertia could be achieved.10 The Aristotelian formulations do, however, reach a certain degree of abstraction in removing from consideration, as irrelevant, differences in the bodies moved other than weight (and, by implication, shape), by considering the medium as perfectly continuous and homogeneous, which it never is in nature, and most of all by defining force, at least in one sense, quantitatively in terms of the effect produced. Aristotle does not completely pass to the ideal case, the only one upon which a fruitful science of dynamics could be based, the case in which a single force is isolated for separate consideration; his view of the basic case of motion does not eliminate the resistance of the medium, does not eliminate friction, and involves, therefore, intricate complexes of force which are not analyzed into separate components. The failure to make this analysis renders fruitful advance in dynamics impossible. This complex case of motion is, in fact, that which is observedin nature; it is not insufficient observation of nature, but insufficient abstraction from the phenomena of nature that paralyzes the Aristotelian dynamics. For Aristotle, therefore, as reference to the passages cited above will
not detain us; in connection with the dynamical equations of Aristotle we may equally well speak in terms of weight. The distinction is no sudden appearance in Newton: see G. Vailati, "Sullo Sviluppo Storico
della Distinzione tra 'Peso' e 'Massa,'" Archil) fiir die Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, I (1908), pp. 48-51.
See e.g. E. Wohlwill, "Die Entdeckung des Beharrungsgesetzes," 0o

Zeitschrift -fir Tolkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, XIV (1883),
pp. 365-410, XV (1884), pp. 70-135, 337-383; E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics (Eng. trans., Chicago, 1919), passim; P. Duhem, "De l'Acceleration Produite par une Force Constante," Congres International
de Philosophie, II (1904), pp. 859-914.
66
ISRAEL E. DRABKIN.
show, a constant force will produce during the time of its application not a uniformly accelerated motion but a motion of uniform velocity, and, conversely, a changing velocity will imply a changing force, not a constant force. Aristotle, however, did take an abortive step toward a law of inertia. In the course of his argument against the existence of the void he adopts the axiom that the times required for a body to traverse a given distance in various media are proportional to the respective densities11 of the media (Physics IV, 8, 215a 31215b 12).12 But the void is of no density; hence the velocity of a body moving through it would be greater than any assignable quantity, and all bodies would move with equal speed through it, since there is nothing in the void to hinder one body more than another. The impossibility of assuming an infinite velocity in a finite universe leads to the argument showing that the assumption of a finite velocity of motion in the void would make it possible for a body to traverse a void or a plenum at equal speeds. This dilemma is one of the arguments which Aristotle uses against those who assume a void.13 Had Aristotle correctly considered resistance as a term to be subtracted from velocity under ideal conditions 14 rather than as
nlThe notion of density is considered quantitatively in Physics IV, 8, 215b 8, but precisely on what basis is not declared, unless the proposition there set forth be itself considered as a definition of the measure of density. Density based on weight per unit of volume seems not to have been in Aristotle's thought in this particular connection, although, as we shall see in the discussion of freely falling bodies, there are in other passages vague indications of a notion of specific gravity. 12 Though the argument is at first concerned with the natural fall of heavy bodies in media, its applicability to other types of locomotion is indicated (216a 20). 13 For a criticism of this type of argument see G. Milhaud, "Aristote et les Mathematiques," Archiv fir Geschichte der Philosophie, IX (1903), pp. 367-392. But the fundamental error is not, as Milhaud seems to think, in the reasoning, but in the assumption, without restrictions, of velocity as inversely proportional to the density of the medium (so H. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy [Baltimore, 1935], p. 152, and, not so clearly, W. D. Ross, Aristotle's Physics [Oxford, 1936], p. 61). 14As did Philoponus, Commentaria in Aristotelis Physicorum Libros, pp. 680-682 (Vitelli); see P. Duhem, Le Systeme du Monde (Paris, 1913), I, pp. 351-371. But Philoponus held that, if there were a void, bodies would not fall in it with equal velocity. On the other hand, the
67
a factor by which to divide the velocity under ideal conditions, and had he therefore been able to assume as the ideal condition, not necessarily as an entity of nature but as a limiting case for the purposes of a mathematical treatment of motion,15a medium devoid of resistance, he could then have deduced that all heavy bodies fall naturally in this ideal medium with equal and finite speed; in short he could have deduced a principle of inertia. Such a principle of inertia for just such a medium he formulated precisely enough,16only to reject it; from this a sound deductive science of dynamics would not have been a far step. But Aristotle would not approachthe problem by way of a hypothetical limiting case; his logic was concerned only with finite classes of existing things. This shows itself in his horror of the indefinite in nature, and in the rejection of the void and of the infinite of extension. For the same reason he was not primarily interested in a mathematical treatment of physical phenomena, though he does take tentative steps along these lines. But the rejection of the void not only as an entity in nature but as a help for a mathematical science of motion, as well as the adoption of the principle that the speed of a body varied inversely as the density of the medium, made impossible a successful treatment of dynamics. Resistance of the medium was viewed as a deterrent to motion, in the same sense as increasing weight of a body to be moved by external force, and was consequently included in the rules of proportionality, so that, for Aristotle, the average velocity of a body acted upon by a force varied directly as the force and inversely as the product of the weight moved and
atomists (and perhaps, too, Straton of Lampsacus), whose basic assumptions would seem to promise most for a fruitful science of dynamics, did not treat quantitatively with any success the factors involved. 16 I have in mind the assumption, as a limiting case, of a medium devoid of resistance in a manner analogous to Aristotle's assumption in geometry of the possibility of indefinite extension (Physics III, 8, 207b 27-34), despite his denial of both the actual and the potential infinite of extension. But with Aristotle the science of mechanics could not be sufficiently divorced from nature, to put the case paradoxically, to be fruitful. 6 Physics IV, 8, 215a 19-22: "Further, no one would be able to say why a body, set in motion <in the void>, would stop'at any place, for why should it stop in one place rather than in another? Hence, a body must either remain at rest or be moved ad infinitum unless something stronger obstructs it."
68
ISRAEL E. DRABEIN.
the density of the medium. The failure to consider the resistance offeredby friction and by the medium as a term to be subtracted from velocity under specified conditions rather than as a factor of proportionality resulted in inconsistencies in the system of Aristotle which could be remedied only by express amendment. Thus, a rigid application of Aristotle's theory would demand that, whatever be the ratio of the factors tending to promote motion to those tending to oppose it, the velocity could never be zero so long as any force, however small, was applied to a body. Aristotle, knowing empirically that, unless the force was large enough, there was no motion, was constrained to amend his laws of proportionality (Physics VII, 5, 250a 12-19) so that motion of translation is asserted only in the case where the ratio of the moving force to the weight moved is not less than a definite quantity. This idea is extended (250b 2-5) to cover other types of motion.l7 Various reasons are assigned for the failure of Aristotelian dynamics. In one sense it is true that the differentiation of natural and unnatural motion and the distinction between the motion of terrestrial elements and the motion of the celestial element contributed to the failure.18 Such a classification tended to restrict the search for analogies which facilitate discoveries in science. It was the motion of the heavenly bodies that gave the
of 7 A similar proviso is implied in connection with the resistance the medium; otherwise Aristotle's theory may be interpreted as requiring that if wood, for example, falls with a given velocity in air, it falls with a lesser velocity in water but does not rise (see Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences [Eng. trans., New York, 1914], p. 66). Of course, Aristotle intended that the formulation should hold only if a body is known to fall in both media that are being compared. Hence, we may consider as implied: "If A falls through medium B with velocity C, it does not follow that A will fall through a medium twice as dense as B with velocity C/2; it may not fall in the new medium at all." On the passage referred to above, Physics VII, 5, 250a 12-19, see F. M. Cornford's discussion in The Classical Quarterly, XXVI (1932), pp. 52-54, and Ross, op. cit., ad loc. Regardless of the precise reading, the point of the-passage is clear. It is to be understood, of course, that, where the weight may be separated into parts each of which may be moved by the force, the proviso is unnecessary (cf. 250a 25-28). 18 See G. Lewes, Aristotle (London, 1864), p. 125; P. Boutroux, "tHistoire des Principes de la Dynamique avant Newton," Revue de M6taphysique et Morale, XXVIII (1921), pp. 661-663; Ross, op cit., p. 33.
69
most striking confirmation of the principle of inertia to those who first based their systems on this principle in the seventeenth century. At the same time it should be rememberedthat a perfectly consistent science of dynamics might still retain the Aristotelian distinction between natural and unnatural motion. For it will not affect a mathematical theory of motion whether the fall of a heavy body and the rise of a light body be referred to an internal striving on the part of the body to unite itself with its kind and to actualize its potentiality, or this motion be referred to a force external to the body. As a matter of fact, the tendency of the last fifty years has been to remove from physics any idea of force other than as a mathematical symbol for the product of mass and acceleration, and, more recently, to view in the fall of a heavy body its natural behavior in a region where the presence of matter involves a type of space which makes this the natural course of action. Certain it is that the cause of the failure of Aristotelian dynamics was not the absence of accurate 1 measuring instruments; Aristotle's instruments were the equal of Galileo's. Again, to view as the cause of that failure the error, from our point of view, of Aristotle's assumption of force as proportional to average velocity
20
is to mistake a symptom for a
cause. Nor is the fundamental cause the denial of the void in nature. The cause is rather an adherence to the phenomena of nature so close as to prevent the abstraction therefrom of the ideal case, where a single force is isolated for separate treatment.
9As held e. g. by A. Frihlings, Die Begriffe "Dynamis" und Energie " bei Aristoteles und die moderne physikalischen Begriffe der Kraft und Energie (Koblenz, 1929), p. 48. On the Greeks as accurate
"
observers of nature, see W. A. Heidel, The Heroic Age of Science (Baltimore, 1933), Chap. V. It is, in a sense, true that Greek science of the fifth and fourth centuries was not so much concernedwith quantitative laws of temporal succession as with qualitative aspects of nature, and was content to consider motion from the point of view of general maxims (e.g. "like tends toward like"). On this matter F. M. Cornford has written most
interestingly
1931]). But is it not precisely in Aristotle that we see a marked effort away from this and toward a quantitative treatment of all the aspects of motion? See also n. 6, above. 0 This is the view of A. E. Haas, "Die Grundlagen der antiken
Dynamik," Archiv fur die Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, I (1908),
(The Laws of Motion in Ancient Thought
[Cambridge,
pp. 43-44.
70
ISRAEL E. DRABKIN.
It is this which prevents Aristotle from arriving at a fruitful principle of inertia.21 III Some features of Aristotle's quantitative formulations cited above (under I) may now be considered from the point of view of the measure of force of which the passages constitute a definition. In Aristotle, forced motion involves the application of the force throughout the whole duration of the motion.22 Thus, in the case of a missile, where we should consider the motive force as ended when the original agent loses physical contact, Aristotle considers the air set in motion by the original force at the projection of the missile as continuing to act upon the missile. The theory of projectiles must, then, be formulated on the basis of the Aristotelian principle that the mover and the moved must always be in contact. Aristotle, however, has no extended quantitative treatment of the precise rate at which the effect of the original force is lost; he merely gives an account of the stages by which the missile comes to rest,23or passes from a forced motion to a natural downward motion. This being the case, when we come to compare the modern formulations of the effect and the measure of force, we shall consider only the case where a single agent acts continuously during the whole course of the motion.24 Now the four propositions of Aristotle cited above under I may be taken as typical. They may be stated as follows:
The fruitfulness consists in the ability to deduce new significant propositions and to predict phenomena of nature with greater accuracy. It is in this sense that, though theoretical dynamics no longer reifies the notion of " force," a theory assuming the proportionality of force to acceleration is incomparably superior to one like Aristotle's, which assumes the proportionality of force to velocity (see e.g. B. Russell, The Analysis of Matter [London, 19273, p. 161; H. Poincare, Science and Hypothesis [New York, 1905], pp. 67-78). 22 See Physics VII, 2, 244a 3-245b'2. 2S See Physics VIII, 10, 267a 2-12. 24 It is to be noted, however, that the case of hurling is included in Physics VIII, 10, 266a 26-28. The implication is that a force twice as great sends the missile a given distance in half the time. For certain features of Aristotle's theory of projectiles, see my note in Classical Weekly, XXIX (1936), pp. 93-96.
21
71
If force A moves weight B a distance C in time D, then I (a) force A moves weight B/2 a distance 2C in time D, I (b) force A moves weight B/2 a distance C in time D/2, I (c) force A moves weight B a distance C/2 in time D/2, I (d) force A/2 moves weight B/2 a distance C in time D. In considering wherein the Aristotelian methods and results differ from those in the modern treatment of the case of the vertical lifting of weights or the hauling of weights over horizontal or up inclined surfaces, we shall, to avoid complexity, neglect the resistance of the medium (which would vary at different velocities) and shall consider the force required to keep a body moving at a uniform rate (i. e. to overcome the resistance due to gravity and to friction) as proportional to its weight.25 We may note three cases. (1) If the force exerted is insufficient to overcome the forces tending to prevent motion, then neither in the Aristotelian nor in the Newtonian system will motion of translation take
place.
(2) If the force exerted is greater than that required to overcome the forces tending to prevent motion, we shall have, in the Newtonian system, uniformly accelerated motion. Thus, if A is the excess of force over that required to overcome the forces tending to prevent B's motion and if A moves B a distance C in time D, then I (a) A moves B/2 a distance 2C in time D, I (b) A moves B/2 a distance C in time D/V 2,
this is justified, since the vertical component 25 As an approximation is measured by weight, and the horizontal depends on total friction, which is, within limits, proportional to total pressure (we must deal with weights of the same material in these cases). The proportionality not only of kinetic but also of the so-called static friction to the weight of bodies of the same shape and material is also, as an approximation, justified. Aristotle does not, in the formulations we are examining, take account of the difference between static and kinetic friction, though the difference is referred to in Mechanica XXXI, 858a 4-12. Since the coefficient of friction changes, beyond certain limits, with varying loads and varying speeds, our assumptions are only approximations. Finally, we may consider as the bodies moved not only such as would slide over the surface but such as would roll, for rolling resistance may, as a first approximation, be considered proportional to the weight of the load.
72
ISRAEL E. DRABKIN.
I (c) A moves B a distance C/2 in time D/V 2, I (d) A/2 moves B/2 a distance C in time D, or in general xA moves yB a distance of zC in time D
26 ?YZ
The systems of Aristotle and Newton cannot here be compared, since for Aristotle an accelerated motion would involve not a
constant but an increasing force productive of the motion.27
(3) Where the force (A) exerted is just sufficient to keep B moving at a uniform rate, the methods of accelerated motion no longer apply. We are confined to a consideration of cases like I (c) and I (d): the initial assumption would not fit cases like I (a) and I (b). Both systems would, under these circumstances, yield equivalent results as to the measure of the force and its effects.28 The same holds in the case of the vertical lifting of weights at uniform speed. It is in connection with this last case that we may find a better basis of comparison between the two systems. If we omit the time element from consideration or consider equal units of time, then A, to which Aristotle gives at times the name USvaiv or Xrvsand at other times no specific name, will measure, in the Aristotelian formulations, not what we call "force," but what we
6 More generally, if A is a force in the Newtonian sense operating continuously during the course of the motion, and P the force required to keep B moving at a uniform rate, the time required in I (a) would be D I2AP; the results in the text are for and in I(b) D 2A the case where P = 0. In general P is a function of the weight moved, the angle of inclination of the plane to the horizontal, and the coefficient of friction between the weight and the surface of the plane. 27 Aristotle recognizes the accelerated motion of bodies rising or falling naturally, without the application of external force, a case not relevant here; see n. 37, below. 2 I.e. time D/2 in I(c) and time D in I(d); I do not refer in the case of I(c) to the beginning of the motion where, in achieving any finite uniform velocity, acceleration is involved, as in (2), above. It may be noted in this connection that the proposition of Physics 250a 25-28 (if A moves B the distance C in time D, and E moves F the distance C in time D, then [A + E] moves [B + F] the distance C in time D) is true for Aristotle and in the modern formulation under case (3), only if A is to B as E is to F.
1/2(A-P)
A-P
73
call "work." Aristotle, of course, has no generalized notion of "work" such as is found in modern mechanics, into which the modern notion of "force " enters. But the notion of "work " in the special sense of the product of a weight lifted by the distance through which it is lifted may be applied to the translation of the Aristotelian equations into modern terms. Again, if we include the time element, we may, under similar circumstances, e. g. in the case of the vertical lifting of a weight at a uniform rate of speed, consider A in the Aristotelian formulations as equivalent to the term " power " in modern mechanics, i. e. the product of "force" by the average speed over a given distance. Thus, the "power " represented in lifting a weight B a distance C in time D is equal to that represented in lifting a weight B/2 a distance 2C in time D (I [a]), or in lifting a weight B/2 a distance C in time D/2 (I [b]), etc. Of course, no fruitful dynamics could result merely from this limited idea of "power" in the absence of a generalized notion of " force " and "work." 29 But in the field of statics even these elementary concepts of Aristotle could and did have some success. The principle of the lever and of other machines was deduced with their aid,30 and a first step was taken toward the
29 The history of mechanics from the sixteenth century shows the interplay between the systems which emphasized work and energy as basic and those which emphasized force and momentum. The relations of force, momentum, work, energy, etc. are all deducible from the principle of inertia: see the work of Mach cited in n. 10, above. 80P. Duhem has shown that the law of the lever as stated in Mechanica III, 850b 1-2 (as well as in numerous other passages of that work), " as the weight moved is to the moving weight, so, inversely, is the length to the length," is deducible from the dynamical formulations discussed above; see Les Origines de la Statique (Paris, 1905), I, pp. 5-12, 356, II, pp. 291-301; P. Boutroux, pp. 657-660 of the article cited in n. 18, above; and Edmund Hoppe, Geschichte der Physik (Braunschweig, 1926), pp. 9-10. It may be doubted whether Aristotle himself made this precise deduction, but, in any case, assuming that the Mechanica is representative of Aristotelian thought, even if not by Aristotle, we have here the beginnings of a science of statics based on principles of motion in a sense analogous to the method of modern mechanics in viewing equilibrium as a limiting case of motion. For the proof of the principle of the lever given in the Mechanica is concerned with the velocities with which the weights or their points of application would move in any disturbance of the equilibrium. (See Mechanica I: compare, in the matter of radial velocities, De Caelo II, 8, 289b 15-16, 34-290a 5. The
74
ISRAEL E. DRARBKIN.
deduction of the parallelogram of forces in the special case of the rectangle (or parallelogram) of displacements.3 IV We now come to Aristotle's treatment of the laws describing the motion of what we should call freely falling bodies. It will be profitable, however, to reverse the chronological order and recall first the formulations of the Galileo-Newtonian system: (1) that all bodies in a medium devoid of resistance fall with the same speed; (2) that in a resisting medium whatever difference of speeds there is is due to the resistance of the medium; (3) that the basic equations of the motion are those of a body acted upon in a vacuum by a constant external force, i. e. the equations of uniformly accelerated motion. For Aristotle, the motion of a freely falling body was a case not of motion due to an external force but of motion due to the natural tendency of the body toward its natural place. The motion is never considered as taking place in a medium devoid of resistance 32but, as it occurs in nature, in a resistant medium. Now a perfectly sound quantitative treatment of this subject could have been based on Aristotle's theory of natural places; it was not this that prevented success. It was, as we saw in the
Mechanica may be viewed as the first step in the development of the method of virtual velocities; see G. Vailati, "I1 Principio dei Lavori Virtuali da Aristotele a Erone d'Alessandria," Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, XXXII [1896-1897], pp. 940-962.) The applicability of the theory of the lever to other machines is noted (Mechanica I, 848a 14-15), and is carried out in other sections of that work. Duhem contrasts the method discussed of deducing the theory of the lever with that of Archimedes, in which velocities play no part, and describes the history of statics as the interplay between these two schools of thought. To deny, with Carteron (pp. 12-15 of the work cited in n. 5, above) that there is any science of statics, any notion of equilibrium in Aristotle is to go counter to the evidence. At the same time, it should be pointed out that Duhem does not always distinguish what may be inferred by a modern scientist and what was inferred by Aristotle. 81See Mechanica I, 848b 9-35, which is preliminary to a discussion of the lever. The question of the deducibility, on Aristotelian principles, of the parallelogram of forces from the proposition on displacements is discussed by Duhem and Carteron in the passages cited in n. 30, above. See also T. L. Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics (Oxford, 1921), I, p. 346. 32 Except to refute the possibility of a void in nature.
75
case of forced motion, an insufficient-degree of abstraction which kept Aristotle from considering the simple case of a freely falling body in a medium devoid of resistance and kept him from treating the retarding influence of the medium correctly. As a result he had to deal here, as in the case of forced motion, with phenomena of the greatest complexity. Galileo, on the other hand, to cite but a single example, by going further in his hypothetical assumptions and in his analysis of factors arrives at a much simpler and more fruitful basis for his science of motion, the frictionless motion of a body in a medium devoid of resistance. The propositions of Aristotle on the subject of freely falling (and rising) bodies are a reasonable sequel to the theory of natural places and, as we shall see, are by no means as strange as they are often declared to be. In the case of the elements, since the natural motion, for example, of earth and water is toward the center of the universe, and since the tendency of the former toward the center is stronger than that of the latter, as evidenced by the circumstance that the ultimate destination of the former is nearer the center than is that of the latter, what more natural than to suppose that earth falling freely would fall more rapidly than water? But the objects of our environment are not pure elements; they are compounds in which one or another of the elements predominates. What, then, more natural than to proceed thus-objects endowed with weight, e, g. those in which earth or water predominate, will, if unimpeded, fall in a lighter medium, and those with more weight will fall more quickly than those with less, and in proportion to the degree of weight; 83 corresponding propositions hold for compounds which are light in comparison with the medium? The results of Aristotle's doctrine of falling bodies (analogous propositions hold for bodies naturally rising in a given medium) may be summed up as follows: (1) Of two bodies of different substances but of equal volume
is analogous to the case of unnatural motion, where speed is a proportional to the moving force. Here the impulse (poorr) is of different kind, yet treated quantitatively in a similar way. This is a step toward the generalization of the notion of force, toward the linking in one system of natural and unnatural motion. Carteron is wrong in denying any such generalization (op. cit., p. 235).
83 This
76
ISRAEL E. DRABEIN.
and alike in shape,34both falling through the same medium from the same point, the heavier will fall more quickly and the ratio of the velocities will be the ratio of the respective weights.35 The reason for the greater speed of the heavier body is that it is better able to divide the medium (Physics IV, 8, 216a 13-18). (2) Of two bodies of the same substance, alike in shape but differing in volume, both falling through the same medium from the same point, the larger volume will fall more quickly and the ratio of the velocities will be the ratio of the respective volumes, or, what in this case amounts to the same thing, of the respective weights. (De Caelo I, 8, 277b 4-5; II, 13, 294b 6; IV, 2, 309b 12-15; III, 5, 304b 14-19. See also analogous propositions for upward motion alone: De Caelo IV, 1, 308b 18-19, 27-28.) The reason for the swifter movement of the greater volume of the substance is, apparently, the same as for the swifter movement of the heavier of two different substances of equal volume
and shape, (see [1] above).36
(3) Of two bodies of different substances, of different volumes but of the same shape, both falling through the same medium from the same point, the heavier will fall more quickly and the ratio of the velocities will be equal to the ratio of the respective weights of the bodies-not weights per unit of volume, but total weights. This follows from (1) and (2), above, and in this sense we must read Physics IV, 8, 216a 13-16; De Caelo I, 6, 273b 30274a 2, II, 8, 290a 1-2 (compare also III, 2, 301a 28-33).s7
4 I. e. geometrically similar. This condition is to be kept in mind even in passages where Aristotle does not specifically mention it. The matter is referred to by Aristotle in Physics IV, 8, 216a 14 and in De Caelo IV, 6, as well as by the commentators. 85 As a matter of fact, this very action is made the basis of the definition as to which of two bodies is lighter. See De Caelo IV, 1, 308a 31-33: "of two bodies having weight and equal in bulk that one is relatively light, or the lighter, than which the other naturally moves downward more swiftly." The precise reading is uncertain, but the meaning is clear: a similar definition may be made of the relatively heavy. See Simplicius, In Aristotelis De Caelo Commentaria, 678, 28-29
(Heiberg). s8 See, however, Cherniss, p. 212, n. 255, of the work cited in n. 13, above. It is to be noted that any two of propositions (1), (2), and (3) imply the third. In (2) it seems necessarily implied that the substance in each case is the same state of compression. 87 Reference may be made here to the passages where the acceleration
77
Before we consider the theory of Aristotle further, let us recall the analysis, in the Newtonian system, of freely falling bodies in a medium. As the velocity increases, the effect of the resistance of the medium becomes, in general, progressively greater, so that, instead of attaining the full constant acceleration which it would attain in vacuo, the body approaches a constant velocity as a limit, since the acceleration tends to be annulled. This constant velocity is known as the terminal velocity. Where the shape of the bodies is the same (i. e. geometrically similar), the terminal velocity of the heavier of two bodies of equal volume but of different material is greater than that of the lighter; the terminal velocity of the larger of two bodies of the same material is greater than that of the smaller.38
of a body falling (or rising) to its natural place is stated: De Caelo I, 8, 277a 28-29, 277b 2-8, III, 2, 301b 19-21, Physics V, 6, 230b 24-25,
VIII, 9, 265b 12-14. The various theories about the cause of this acceleration may be found in Simplicius, In Aristotelis De Caelo Corn-
mentaria, p. 264, 9-267, 6 and are summed up in P. Duhem, Le Systeme du Monde, I, pp. 388-398, in the article of Duhem cited in n. 10, above, and in that of Haas cited in n. 20, above. For a different view see Carteron,op. cit., p. 18. The fact that Aristotle considers acceleration in forced motion as due to increase of force would seem to indicate that for Aristotle the cause of acceleration in natural motion was increase of weight in the falling body which strives more eagerly to attain its goal the nearer it approaches the goal. In none of the passages that deal with acceleration is there any limitation such as would support the idea that Aristotle, in his theory of the ratio of the velocities of falling bodies, has any precise notion of terminal velocities. s This agrees with the corresponding Aristotelian formulations (1 and 2) so far as it indicates which body falls more quickly; the error of Aristotle is in the statement of the ratio of the velocities. The determination of the precise way in which air resistance varies with velocity has long concerned scientists (see e.g. Newton's Principia, II, Sections 1-3). The problem is most complex, depending not only on the velocity, mass, and shape of the body but on the density, pressure, etc. of the air. For some results reference may be made to Physikalisches Handworterbuch2,s. v. Fallbewegung (Berlin, 1932); F. R. Moulton, New Methods in Exterior Ballistics (Chicago, 1926), pp. 29-39; The Encyclopaedia Britannical, s.v. "Ballistics," pp. 1003-1006. Textbooks on dynamics contain the mathematical theory. The terminal velocity of a raindrop of average size is about 8 meters per second (approached in about a second of fall), and that of a heavy,
78
ISRAEL E. DRABKIN.
In order to make Aristotle's strange theory of the relative velocities of bodies falling in a medium seem not quite so contrary to the evidence of our senses, it has been suggested that he was
thinking in terms of terminal velocity.39 Not only, however, is
there no evidence in Aristotle that this was his thought (see F. Cajori, " Aristotle and Galileo on Falling Bodies," Science, New Series, LI [1920], pp. 615-616), but the absence of any such reference from the discussion of acceleration would seem to preclude the notion of terminal velocity. Furthermore-though this seems not to have been stated by those who made the suggestion-the ratio of the terminal velocities of two bodies can by no means be said, as a general proposition, to equal or closely to approximate the ratio of the weights of the bodies. As a matter of fact, Aristotle's theory does not always correctly state which of two bodies of different material and different volumes falls more swiftly.40 In any case, therefore, it is impossible to vindicate Aristotle on this point. It is, however, a very superficial view of the problem to say, as textbooks often do,41 that
Aristotle had only to drop two objects to see that his principles
pointed piece of granite may be several hundred meters per second and may take a fall of about 30 seconds and several kilometers to approach, according to P. A. Haas, Mechanik (Leipzig, 1926), p. 69. In the familiar case of the fall of an object from relatively small heights the fall ends, generally, before terminal velocity is approached. This was the case in the experiments ascribed to Galileo at the Tower of Pisa, though, of course, Galileo was quite aware of the retarding effect of air resistance (see pp. 65, 74-77 of the work cited in n. 17 above). s9 See e. J. H. Hardcastle, " Professor Turner and Aristotle," Nature, g. XCII (1914), p. 584; the suggestion has had the approval of Ramsay, Lodge, Ostwald, and Greenhill (ibid., p. 606). The passage of St. Thomas (commenting on Aristotle, Physics 216a 12-21) relied on by Hardcastle not only does not show that Aristotle entertained the idea of terminal velocity but not even that St. Thomas did. Nor is there anything in Aristotle, so far as I know, to justify the ascription to him of a formula such as Hardcastle's (Nature, XCIII [1914], p. 428). 40If the retardation due to air resistance is directly proportional to the area of the cross section of the body and inversely proportional to the mass, it will be seen that of two bodies of the same shape that with the greater total weight will not necessarily encounter smaller retardation if the specific gravity of the other is sufficiently large in relation to that of the first. " E.g. F. Cajori, A History of Physics2 (New York, 1929), p. 5.
79
were erroneous. Aristotle had not only made this particular observation but had also observed the different rates of descent, for example, of large raindrops, small raindrops, snow flakes. Without a definite idea of terminal velocity Aristotle may still have been thinking of longer falls.42 His theory is in any case erroneous, but in a matter so complex as rates of fall in resistant media, on which experimental investigation is still conducted, his failure is easily understandable. The fundamental cause of the error in Aristotle's whole theory of falling bodies was, as we have seen, his preoccupation with a matter of profound complexity in dealing with a fall in a resistant medium instead of passing to a much simpler basis, that of a falling body in a medium devoid of resistance. The failure to consider the resistance of the medium as a term to be subtracted from the velocity which would have been attained in vacuo vitiated the theory as to the ratio of the velocities of falling bodies.43 It seems to me a mistake to say 44 that the fundamental cause of Aristotle's error in the treatment of the laws of falling bodies was the lack of clear notions on density and specific gravity. The chief error was in the formulation of the ratio of velocities of falling bodies; this could not be cured merely by a consideration of specific gravities.45 What determines the rise or the fall of a body in a medium, for Aristotle as for us, is the weight of the body relative to that of the medium, as is clear from a consideration of the theory of natural places. In this determination Aristotle is thinking along the lines of a natural weight which we should call weight per unit of volume but of which Aristotle did not develop a quantitative treatment (see e. g. De Caelo IV, 1, 308a 31-33, cited in n. 35, above) . This is not to be confused with the consideration of total weight in the comparison of the
*2This is the view Galileo puts into the mouth of Simplicio (p. 65 of the work cited in n. 17, above). "SSee the reference in n. 14, above, to Philoponus, to which may be added E. Wohlwill, "Ein Vorganger Galileis im 6 Jahrhundert," Physikalische Zeitschrift, VII (1906), pp. 23-32. 4 As does W. C. D. Dampier-Whetham, A History of Science (Cam36. 1929), bridge, p. " Thus Galileo in his earlier work adopts the Aristotelian theory of the ratio of the velocities of falling bodies, with a clarification from the point of view of specific gravity (see P. Duhema, pp. 888-889 of the article cited in n. 10, above).
80
ISRAEL E. DRABBKIN.
ratio of the velocities of two bodies in a medium in which both are known to fall; Aristotle never suggests finding the total weight of the medium (De Caelo IV, 4, 311a 28-29). The difficulties of De Caelo IV, 2-6 are occasioned, first, by the lack of the precise language of specific gravity, though the ideas are present (see e. g. De Caelo IV, 4, 311a 15-311b 13; Simplicius, In Aristotelis De Caelo Commentaria, pp. 709-712 [Heiberg]) and, secondly, by the fact that Aristotle is attempting to do what modern scientists have generally, perhaps wisely, declined to do, namely to give a causal explanation of gravitation in terms of the ultimate constitution of matter. V I shall refer only briefly to some of the other topics which bear on the theory of locomotion. Intimately connected with the question of falling bodies is that of projectiles, referred to at the beginning of part III, above. Precisely how the projectile is acted upon after the original projector has lost contact with it seems not to have been very clear to Aristotle. There is a hesitant notion of vis impressa, a step in the direction of a generalized, abstract view of force, but with Aristotle it is to a portion of the medium that the original projector imparts the power to cause motion, this portion of the medium in turn affecting the next, and so on, but each portion ceasing to be moved, though not to exert its vis motrix, on losing contact with the portion to which it owed its motion (Physics VIII, 10, 266b 27-267a 20). This whole matter is widely discussed by the ancient authors; it is often connected with the question of action at a distance, e. g. in connection with phenomena of magnetism. The development of the theory of vis impressa (e. g. in Philoponus, in whose theory the power is imparted to the projectile itself) is of interest in connection with the modern notions of inertia, energy, and momentum.46
The arguments for the immobility of the earth (De Caelo II, 14), based ultimately on the natural circular motion of the
'6 References to the main sources from Plato and Aristotle to Simplicius and Philoponus are to be found in Haas (pp. 36-41 of the article cited in n. 20, above), P. Duhem, Le SystWme du Monde, I, pp. 371-388,
81
heavens, which necessitates the assumption of an immobile center (De Caelo II, 3, 286b 9 47), show, despite the conclusion as to absolute motion, an appreciation of features of relative motion.48 Throughout the discussion in the Physics the ideas of motion and rest are ideas of mutual implication. For Aristotle the absolute motion of the heavens was necessitated by the requirements of his metaphysical system; it is interesting to note that many modern scientists who, so far from being constrained by any metaphysical system, boast of their complete independence of metaphysics, can not dispense with the idea of absolute motion in some form or other. Though Aristotle's arguments for the immobility of the earth are erroneous, they are of the highest interest. Those fixed stars which are observed, from a given point on the earth's surface, to rise and set, always rise and set at the same respective places (De Caelo II, 14, 296b 5-6). This fact furnished a plausible argument against a motion of translation on the part of the earth relative to the fixed stars until annual stellar parallax was first observed; the tremendous distance of the stars was not, of course, conceived by the ancients. The fact that missiles which have been thrown straight up seem to descend to the point from which they were thrown (De Caelo II, 14, 296b 23-24) confirms Aristotle's conclusion of the immobility of the earth, though it is difficult to see how he could have performed accurate experiments of this nature.49 Of course, by the principle of relativity (based on the principle of inertia)
Carteron, op. cit., pp. 23-27, and Wohlwill (pp. 23-28 of the article cited in n. 43, above). 47 This assumption is strengthened by the consideration that the rotation of the sphere of fixed stars cannot be due to any motion of the earth, since such a motion could not be natural to the earth, and the apparently eternal character of the motion in question seems to require that it be natural (De Caelo II, 14, 296a 27-34). 48 The post-Aristotelian work De Xenophane also has an interesting in connection with relative motion (977b 12-17); in connection passage with the idea of the inseparability of action and reaction see De Motu Animalium, 1-3. "9The same may be said of the argument (De Caelo II, 14, 297b 17Z20) for the sphericity of the earth, to the effect that heavy bodies fall to earth not in parallel lines but in such a way as "to make equal angles" (i. e. along perpendiculars to different tangent planes at the points of contact).
82
ISRAEL E. DRABKIN.
in the physics of Galileo and Newton-that a uniform rectilinear motion of an enclosed system cannot be detected by a mechanical experiment performed within that system-the effect of the argument is annulled so far as motion of translation is concerned. The effect of the earth's rotation on the apparent trajectories of missiles and of freely falling bodies was not observed until comparatively recent times. The arguments for the sphericity of the earth (De Caelo II, 13-14), and for the sphericity of the surface of water in equilibrium 50 (De Caelo II, 4, 287b 14, in the course of an attempt to prove the sphericity of the heavens), the relations of the various types of motion, uniform and non-uniform, rotatory, circular, and rectilinear, the whole theory of time, the problems of continuity of time, space, and motion, the problems and paradoxes of the infinite and the infinitesimal, are some of the other matters treated by Aristotle in his discussion of motion. VI. In examining Aristotle's attempts to represent quantitatively certain phenomena of nature, we have seen wherein his shortcomings lay. We have seen that from one point of view success was impeded not by insufficient observation and excessive speculation but by too close an adherenceto the data of observationand by insufficient analysis and insufficient abstraction, a condition which was not overcome until two thousand years later.51 Those who discredit Aristotelian science would do well to remember that the quality of Aristotle's work must be estimated not merely by comparison with that of his successors but also by comparison with that of his predecessors. We may think of Aristotle as having joined to the deductive and mathematical analysis of Platonic science a realization that the validity of a science of nature is ultimately tested by empirical observation. We see in Aristotle's work an appreciation of
This demonstration is considered by Duhem (Le Systeme du Monde "o I, p. 214) the beginning of theoretical hydrostatics. 61 But it is to be noted that Galileo's advance over Aristotle was not due to a basically different methodology but to a more successful analysis of the individual factors in phenomena (see P. P. Wiener, "The Tradition Behind Galileo's Methodology," Osiris, I [1936], pp. 733-746).
83
the importance of abstraction, an attempt, though hesitant and incomplete, to look beyond the mere description of phenomena, to the formulation of mathematical equations applicable to physical relations, even the groping toward a simplicity postulate in the use (and abuse) of proportionality in the formulations. From one point of view, that portion of the scientific corpus of Aristotle which is concerned with the classification and the report of observations is most valuable; but, from another point of view, the attempt to do what Aristotle recognizes as necessarily involving a lesser degree of certitude, to organize and systematize this knowledge, to find underlying principles, and to bring all together under an integrated view of all existence is of even
greater significance.52
Aristotle happened to be both scientist and metaphysician, but it is an all too common error to say that he confused the two fields. That the description of what is observed and the attempt to formulate these descriptions quantitatively are procedures quite different from the search for ultimate causes underlying phenomena was as clear to Aristotle as it was to Newton when he penned the famous passage at the end of the Opticks. That certain basic metaphysical assumptions must underlie even the simplest scientific description or abstraction seems to have been clearer to Aristotle than to many modern scientists. There is great danger in pressing comparisonsbetween ancient and modern science, in asserting that in such and such a Greek philosopher we have the germ of such and such a modern theory. Yet it is instructive to note elements of continuity in the history of human thought. The fruits of comparatively recent study in the history of science have served to make us more aware of this continuity in a particular field of thought, though occasionally this factor has been overemphasized. I do not propose at this time to catalogue the achievements of Aristotelian science from this point of view.53 We may note, however, in passing, the anal52 The modern tendency in some quarters to praise Aristotle's biologic treatises and not the purely physical is partly due to the fact that modern progress in reducing science to a mathematical basis has not been as great in biology as in physics. 6s I have, in passing, indicated certain considerations and references of this sort in connection with motion. Since my treatment has not been concerned with the animate, I shall make no reference to biology, but reference should be made in the field of chemistry to E. O. Von
84
ISRAEL E. DRABKIN.
ogy between the Aristotelian theory of natural places together with the distinction of natural and unnatural motion and the view of relativity physics in which the fall of a heavy body is described not in terms of external force but in terms of the geometric properties of space.54 More recently certain analogies have been pointed out 55 between Aristotelian metaphysics and the quantum theory (though elements of discontinuity in the latter would seem inharmonious with the former). It must, nevertheless, be rememberedthat the chief significance of Aristotle for modern science and modern thought in general comes not from lasting achievements from the point of view of the substance of science, but from those of spirit and method, not from points of detail and isolated instances where analogies may be drawn, but from the rational ideal, the patient and painstaking analysis and observation which pervade the whole system in all its varied yet integrated parts.
ISRAEL E. DRABKIN.
TOWNSEND HARRIS HIGH SCHOOL. THE COLLEGEOF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
" Lippman, Chemisches und Alchemisches aus Aristoteles," Archiv fur

Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, II (1910), pp. 233-300, and to P. Duhem, Le Mixte et la Combinaison (Paris, 1902), where instructive analogies are drawn between modern views of chemical phenomena and the Aristotelian theory as set forth in De Generatione et Corruptione. The work of W. A. Heidel cited in n. 19, above, has an account of substantive and methodological achievements of Greek science. See also my article, "An Appraisal of Greek Science," Classical Weekly, XXX (1936), p. 57. 5r See e. g. P. M. Kretschmann, "The Problem of Gravitation in Aristotle and the New Physics," Journal of Philosophy, XXVIII (1931), pp. 260-266. I have indicated above that, from the point of view of the mere description of phenomena-I do not now refer to metaphysical theory-the precise nature of the forces causing motion is irrelevant, provided that the forces in question may in some way be compared. Aristotle seems to have taken tentative steps along this path (see n. 33, above). 55See C. Bialobrzeski, "Sur la Mecanique Quantique," Revue de Metaphysique et Morale, XLI (1934), pp. 83-103.

Drabkin, I. E. Notes On The Laws of Motion in Aristotle

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Drabkin, I. E. Notes On The Laws of Motion in Aristotle

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Notes on the Laws of Motion in Aristotle Author(s): Israel E.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

See e.g. E. Wohlwill, "Die Entdeckung des Beharrungsgesetzes," 0o

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

is to mistake a symptom for a

(The Laws of Motion in Ancient Thought

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

NOTES ON THE LAWS OF MOTION IN ARISTOTLE.

" Lippman, Chemisches und Alchemisches aus Aristoteles," Archiv fur

S-ar putea să vă placă și